COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Willis and Bray 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

CALVIN BOWE 

v. Record No. 2285-94-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MARCH 5, 1996 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY 

William N. Alexander, II, Judge 

 J. Patterson Rogers, 3rd, for appellant. 

 Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Calvin Bowe (defendant) was convicted by a jury for unlawful 

wounding. On appeal, defendant complains that the trial court 

erroneously permitted his wife to testify, despite his assertion 

of spousal privilege pursuant to Code § 19.2-271.2. Finding no 

error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record, and we 

recite only those facts necessary to a disposition of this 

appeal. Under familiar principles of appellate review, the 

evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly 

deducible therefrom. Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 

443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). Defendant and his wife, Rosa 

Lee Bowe (wife), resided with wife's parents. On July 24, 1994, 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

the couple quarreled, and defendant began assaulting wife with 

both his fists and feet. Wife "backed up" and "laid down on [a] 

sofa" in the bedroom, covering her face with her arms. Wife's 

father, Albert Whitfield, was in the kitchen, "peeling a tomato" 

with a "butcher knife," when he heard wife tell defendant "to get 

off . . . of [her]." Whitfield, "with [the] knife in [his] 

hand," entered the bedroom and observed defendant "holding [wife] 

down, beating on her," "banging her eye." When Whitfield 

directed defendant to "leave [wife] alone," defendant "snatched 

the knife" from Whitfield's hand, and "twist[ed] [his] arm." As 

Whitfield "turned . . . to leave," defendant "hit" and "cut" him 

with the knife. 

 Defendant was arrested on July 26, 1994 for the malicious 

wounding of Whitfield, the subject offense, and the assault and 

battery on wife. In the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District 

Court, wife testified against defendant both in the trial of the 

misdemeanor and the preliminary hearing on the felony. Defendant 

was convicted of assault, and the felony was certified to the 

grand jury. Defendant's subsequent objection to wife's testimony 

during trial of the instant offense, based upon the spousal 

privilege, was overruled by the court. 

 "Husband[s] and wi[ves] shall be competent witnesses to 

testify for or against each other in criminal cases, except as 

otherwise provided." Code § 19.2-271.1. Code § 19.2-271.2 

provides, in pertinent part, that "neither [husband nor wife] 
- 3 - 

shall be compelled, nor, without the consent of the other, 

allowed, to be called as a witness against the other, except 

(i) in the case of a prosecution for an offense committed by one 

against the other . . . ." Thus, "competency is the general rule 

and disqualification is the exception," Brown v. Commonwealth, 

223 Va. 601, 606, 292 S.E.2d 319, 322 (1982), and Code 

§ 19.2-271.2 "must be strictly construed against the existence of 

the privilege." Bennett v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 448, 456, 374 

S.E.2d 303, 309 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1028 (1989). 

 In Brown, we held that "where one spouse is indicted for an 

offense against the other and an offense against a third party, 

and both offenses arose from a common criminal enterprise, the 

witness-spouse can testify against the defendant-spouse in the 

prosecution of both charges." Brown, 223 Va. at 608, 292 S.E.2d 

at 323 (emphasis added). Further, "[w]here one spouse has 

testified in a criminal prosecution against the other, whatever 

marital harmony once existed has been dissipated, and the spousal 

privilege no longer serves a useful purpose." Id.

 Here, defendant was violently assaulting wife when her 

father, the victim of the instant offense, came to her aid. 

Ignoring Whitfield's command to stop, defendant continued 

"beating" and "banging" wife, and "grabbed" the knife from 

Whitfield's hand, wounding Whitfield with it as he retreated. 

Under such circumstances, defendant's assault on Whitfield 

clearly attended defendant's attack on wife and, therefore, 
- 4 - 

"arose from a common criminal enterprise." See id. 
- 5 - 

 Accordingly, wife's testimony was properly admitted into 

evidence. 

 Affirmed.